“Hypercosmic God” in “non-material realm”

French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d’Espagnat recently was awarded the Templeton Prize, the largest annual prize in the world, which seeks to reconcile faith and science. What makes d’Espagnat’s work noteworthy, particularly to the Templeton Foundation is the contention that a “veiled reality” exists behind the science.

The thrust of d’Espagnat’s work was on experimental tests of Bell’s theorem. The theorem states that either quantum mechanics
is a complete description of the world or that if there is some reality beneath quantum mechanics, it must be nonlocal – that is, things can influence one another instantaneously regardless of how much space stretches between them, violating Einstein’s insistence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
…
Unlike classical physics, d’Espagnat explained, quantum mechanics cannot describe the world as it really is, it can merely make
predictions for the outcomes of our observations. If we want to believe, as Einstein did, that there is a reality independent of our
observations, then this reality can either be knowable, unknowable or veiled. D’Espagnat subscribes to the third view. Through science, he says, we can glimpse some basic structures of the reality beneath the veil, but much of it remains an infinite, eternal mystery.

This led d’Espagnat to conclude that what was veiled was a “hypercosmic God.” He related it to Spinoza’s God, saying that there exists “a holistic, non-material realm that lies outside of space and time.”

The writers at New Scientist go on to say that this finding or research “in no way helps Christians or Muslims or Jews or anyone else rationalise their specific beliefs.” While I would agree with that statement in part (this finding is not going to help someone know if any of those specific Gods exist), it is consistent with a Christian theology, which New Scientist apparently does not understand.

Their point is that d’Espagnat’s theories point to a veiled, non-material (super-natural in the most basic usage of the term) realm and a concept of God that is not knowable through science. “He” is only visible as if through a veil. We have no way of truly understanding who He is, therefore for New Scientist “it would be nonsensical to paint it with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments.” The problem is that the broad findings reported by New Scientist line up with Christian doctrine.

There exists outside of time and space a reality that is non-material in which God is most present. However, because God is so much greater than us, He is utterly unknowable through any means we could ever have. Science could never fathom to reach God and understand Him. However, He would be knowable if He revealed Himself to us through creation, teachings and in the form of a man, with which He could relate to us completely.

The idea of their being a separation between our current understanding of God and the eventual, perfect knowledge of God that will come when we are able to cross into the non-material is an entirely biblical concept:

Obviously, as I said earlier, this research does not “proof” that the Christian God exists. You cannot look at this study and say this proves the Bible (or the Koran, etc.) is accurate in all that it states. However, the concepts and ideas behind the research and stemming from it are entirely consistent with the Christian concept of God.

9 Responses

That is indeed interesting, but materialists will be the last ones to convert as quantum science and other new sciences reveal that the bible has been right all along. As Chesterton said, the scientists will scale the mountain of knowledge, and at the top, find a group of theologians who have been there for centuries.
This is the end of all skeptics, eventually. They will either admit God is right, and submit, or curse him and die.
But perhaps those in the valley of decision (open minded skeptics, as opposed to our closed-minded sort) may see this and become open to the idea that God is real.

BTW, scientists, including Einstein, resisted the Big Bang for the same reasons – because they knew that a finite universe supported the biblial view, and the Cosmological argument, which they did not reject until after it was seen that science really did support a beginning to time and space.
This is just another way in which non-biblical views like evolution and materialism hinder science, as I wrote in How scientific materialism undermines science and reason.

In a statement d'Espagnat said "I feel myself deeply in accordance with the Templeton Foundation's great, guiding idea that science does shed light [on spirituality]. In my view it does so mainly by rendering unbelievable an intellectual construction claiming to yield access to the ultimate ground of things with the sole use of the simple, somewhat trivial notions everybody has."
Oh, that's just priceless.

I think you saw it the picture but maybe you didn't actually read it. It says, "Even though we know dinosaurs survived the flood (on Noah's Ark) we don't know if Jesus ever rode them. But he probably did!" The point of the cartoon that Louis linked is that some conservatives believe that Jesus and dinosaurs co-existed. That's the point. But anyway…Also, could you please show me any conservative or evangelical who believes Jesus rode a dinosaur.
Aaron, we don't know if Jesus ever rode a dinosaur but given that people and dinosaurs co-existed, it's not that far fetched to believe He did. Jesus works in mysterious way, does he not? Who are you to poo poo the idea of Jesus riding on a dinosaur. You don't know if he did or not either. You have to have a balanced view!A conservative or evangelical who believes people and dinosaurs lived at the same time riding a triceratops.
This doesn't strike me as satire. These people actually believe people and dinosaurs co-existed. Here is another picture from the creation museum, Eve with a velociraptor